[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13306]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 1, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 

Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of April 4 Through April 
8, 1994

    During the week of April 4 through April 8, 1994, the decisions and 
orders summarized below were issued with respect to applications for 
exception or other relief filed with the Office of Hearings and Appeals 
of the Department of Energy. The following summary also contains a list 
of submissions that were dismissed by the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals.

Requests for Exception

Christian County Farmers Supply Co., 4/7/94, LEE-0073 

    Christian County Farmers Supply Co. (CCFSC) filed an Application 
for Exception from the provisions of the Energy Information 
Administration (EIA) reporting requirements in which the firm sought 
relief from filing Form EIA-782B, entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' 
Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' In considering the request, 
the DOE found that the firm was not adversely affected by the reporting 
burden in a way that is significantly different from the burden borne 
by similar reporting firms and was not experiencing a serious hardship 
or gross inequity. Accordingly, exception relief was denied.

Decatur Cooperative Association, 4/5/94, LEE-0068

    Decatur Cooperative Association (Decatur) filed an Application for 
Exception from the provisions of the Energy Information Administration 
(EIA) reporting requirements in which the firm sought relief from 
filing Form EIA-782B, entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly 
Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' The DOE determined that Decatur did 
not meet the standards for exception relief because it was not 
experiencing a serious hardship or gross inequity as a result of the 
reporting requirements. Accordingly, exception relief was denied.

Minneola CO-OP, Inc., 4/6/94, LEE-0071

    Minneola Co-op, Inc. (Minneola) filed an Application for Exception 
from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it 
file Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum 
Product Sales Report.'' In considering this request, the DOE found that 
the firm was not suffering a gross inequity or serious hardship. On 
February 15, 1994, the DOE issued a Proposed Decision and Order 
determining that the exception request should be denied. No Notice of 
Objection to the Proposed Decision and Order was filed within the 
prescribed time period. Therefore, on April 6, 1994, the DOE issued the 
Proposed Decision and Order in final form, denying Minneola's 
Application for Exception.

Ranchers Supply, Inc. 4/7/94, LEE-0072

    Ranchers Supply, Inc. (Ranchers Supply) filed an Application for 
Exception from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement 
that it file Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly 
Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' In considering this request, the DOE 
found that the firm was not suffering a gross inequity or serious 
hardship. On February 15, 1994, the DOE issued a Proposed Decision and 
Order determining that the exception request should be denied. No 
Notice of Objection to the Proposed Decision and Order was filed within 
the prescribed time period. Therefore, the DOE issued the Proposed 
Decision and Order in final form, denying Ranchers Supply's Application 
for Exception.

Schaal Oil Co., 4/6/94, LEE-0069

    Schaal Oil Co. (Schaal) filed an Application for Exception from the 
provisions of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reporting 
requirements in which the firm sought relief from filing Form EIA-782B, 
entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales 
Report.'' In considering the request, the DOE found that the firm was 
not adversely affected by the reporting burden in a way that is 
significantly different from the burden borne by similar reporting 
firms and was not experiencing a serious hardship or gross inequity. 
Accordingly, exception relief was denied.

Star-Lite Propane Gas Corp., 4/8/94, LEE-0065

    Star-Lite Propane Gas Corp. filed an Application for Exception from 
the requirement that it file Form EIA-782B entitled ``Resellers'/
Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' In considering the 
request, the DOE found that the firm had failed to show that it 
suffered any burden significantly different from similarly situated 
reporting firms. Accordingly, exception relief was denied. The 
important issue discussed in the Decision and Order was that at the 
time it filed the Application, Star-Lite had not yet attempted to 
complete the form. Therefore, its claims of hardship regarding the time 
and effort needed to complete the form were speculative.

Motion for Reconsideration and/or Rescission

Energy Refunds, Inc., 4/5/94, LFR-0013

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning a Motion for 
Reconsideration filed by Energy Refunds, Inc. (ERI). In its Motion, ERI 
requested that the DOE terminate the ERI's disqualification from 
representing refund applicants in OHA proceedings. See Energy Refunds, 
Inc., 23 DOE 85,151 (1993); Energy Refunds, Inc., 23 DOE 85,076 
(1993).
    In considering ERI's Motion, the DOE noted ERI's expressed 
commitment to accuracy in its submissions, as well as its proposed 
remedial procedures which, if conscientiously implemented, would 
prevent the repetition of the types of conduct for which it had been 
disqualified. Based on ERI's representations, the DOE determined that 
ERI should be reinstated, subject to OHA's further review of the firm's 
implementation of the procedures in question. Accordingly, the Motion 
for Reconsideration was granted.

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

J.R. Cone, 4/5/94, LEF-0118

    The DOE issued a final Decision and Order setting forth refund 
procedures for distributing $610,000, plus accrued interest, in alleged 
overcharges obtained from J. R. Cone (Cone). These funds were remitted 
by Cone to the DOE pursuant to a Consent Order resolving possible price 
violations with respect to sales of crude oil during the period 
September 1, 1973 through December 31, 1976. The DOE determined that 
the funds will be distributed in accordance with the DOE's Modified 
Statement of Restitutionary Policy Concerning Crude Oil Overcharges 
(MSRP). Under the MSRP, crude oil overcharge monies are divided among 
the states (40%), the Federal Government (40%), and injured purchasers 
of refined products (20%). In this case, $244,000, plus accrued 
interest, was remitted to the states, $244,000, plus accrued interest, 
was remitted to the Federal government, and $122,000, plus interest 
accrued, has been reserved for direct restitution to injured purchasers 
of petroleum products. Applications for Refund from this fund will now 
be accepted. The specific information to be included in the 
Applications for Crude Oil Refunds, which must be submitted by June 30, 
1994, is included in the Decision.

Refund Applications

Donco Carriers, Inc., 4/5/94, RC272-234

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning an Application for 
Refund submitted in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceeding by Donco 
Carriers, Inc. This Decision adjusted the original refund granted to 
Donco Carriers in the Decision and Order issued on November 30, 1993, 
Donco Carriers, Inc. (Case No. RF272-78471). The original refund was 
adjusted to account for subtracting owner-operator miles from the 
gallonage claim and for recalculating the dollars to gallons conversion 
using average annual prices for distillate fuel. Accordingly, this 
Decision rescinded in part the original refund granted to Donco 
Carriers, Inc. in Case No. RF272-78471.

Gulf Oil Corporation/Dennis Lee Lay, 4/6/94, RF300-21298

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning an Application for 
Refund submitted in the Gulf Oil Corporation special refund proceeding 
by Frances Carolyn Lee Perry on behalf of her ex-husband Dennis Lee 
Lay. Ms. Perry applied for purchases of petroleum products made by her 
ex-husband Mr. Lay when he operated a Gulf station during the refund 
period. In addition to providing information that she and Mr. Lay 
formed an economic unit and that she helped operate the station, Ms. 
Perry also submitted a court order directing that the entire refund be 
granted to her because of her ex-husband's delinquency on child support 
payments. Based on these considerations, the DOE determined that the 
entire refund should be granted to Ms. Perry.

Gulf Oil Corporation/Siegel Oil Co., 4/7/94, RF300-9356

    Siegel Oil Company filed an application for Refund in the Gulf Oil 
Corporation special refund proceeding. Siegel requested an above-
volumetric refund based on two alternative theories: 1) that Gulf's use 
of a substitute supplier for Siegel violated the price and allocation 
regulations, causing Siegel injury and 2) that Gulf's use of a 
substitute supplier, even if lawful, caused Siegel to suffer injury 
which should be remedied through the refund process. In considering 
Siegel's Application, the DOE determined that Siegel had not made a 
reasonable demonstration that Gulf committed a regulatory violation and 
that, absent such a demonstration, there was no basis for an above-
volumetric refund. Finally, the DOE determined that Siegel was eligible 
for a refund of $5,000 plus interest based on its indirect purchases of 
Gulf product and the small claims injury presumption.

Texaco Inc./Todd's Texaco, 4/8/94, RR321-124

    Barbara Todd, the owner of Todd's Texaco, filed a Motion for 
Reconsideration of a Decision and Order that denied duplicate refund 
applications that Mrs. Todd had filed in the Texaco refund proceeding. 
Mrs. Todd stated that she had signed the second application, and 
certified that no other application had been filed, because she had 
asked her representative to cancel the first application. The DOE 
granted the Motion, finding that Mrs. Todd's explanation for filing the 
second application was credible. In considering Mrs. Todd's refund 
claim, the DOE found that, as an indirect purchaser of Texaco motor 
gasoline, she was eligible for a refund since her suppliers had not 
shown that they absorbed the Texaco overcharges. The total amount of 
the refund granted in this case was $1,828.

Texaco Inc./Tom's Texaco, 4/6/94, RR321-153

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying a Motion for 
Reconsideration filed on behalf of Tom's Texaco in the Texaco in 
special refund proceeding. In this motion, Mr. Cirafici, owner of Tom's 
Texaco, attempted to show that the refund granted to Tom's Texaco was 
less than the refund for which Tom's Texaco is eligible. Mr. Cirafici 
relied solely on his memory to formulate additional gallonage 
estimates. The DOE found that Mr. Cirafici did not present sufficient 
evidence to support his estimates and that therefore he had not 
presented any new or overlooked information that would cause the DOE to 
alter its previous decision. Accordingly, the Motion for 
Reconsideration was denied.

Refund Applications

    The Office of Hearings and Appeals issued the following Decisions 
and Orders concerning refund applications, which are not summarized. 
Copies of the full texts of the Decisions and Orders are available in 
the Public Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Name                          Case No.           Date  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Richfield Company/D&B Arco et  RF304-13386             04/07/94
 al.                                                                    
Bassett Mirror Co. et al..............  RF272-92000             04/08/94
Charter Oil Co./California............  RF23-266                04/08/94
California............................  RF3-267                .........
City of Richland, Missouri et al......  RF272-85395             04/07/94
Gulf Oil Corp./Beard's Gulf Service et  RF300-20548             04/08/94
 al.                                                                    
Gulf Oil Corp./Blue Flame Gas Co. of    RF300-19655             04/05/94
 Polk County.                                                           
Blue Flame Gas Company................  RF300-21781            .........
Gulf Oil Corp./Eastern Express, Inc...  RF300-21775             04/08/94
Gulf Oil Corp./WJT Oil................  RF300-16244             04/08/94
Livonia Public Schools et al..........  RF272-82146             04/06/94
McDowell County School District.......  RF272-127               04/06/94
Talbot County School District et al...  RF272-81295             04/06/94
Texaco Inc./Bill & Charlie's Texaco et  RF321-7705              04/05/94
 al.                                                                    
Texaco Inc./Gallaway Texaco Truck Stop  RF321-155               04/08/94
Texaco Inc./Hope Service Station, Inc.  RF321-7486              04/05/94
 et al.                                                                 
Winston County School District........  RF272-80647             04/08/94
Midview Local School District.........  RF272-80818            .........
Humboldt Community School.............  RF272-81161            .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Name                               Case No.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barberton City School District....................  RF272-82232         
Betteroads Asphalt Corp...........................  RF315-9162          
Bill's ARCO.......................................  RF304-12132         
Cathedral City, CA................................  RF272-85581         
Dave's Texaco.....................................  RF321-8603          
De Ruyter Central School..........................  RF272-93109         
Downtown Texaco...................................  RF321-992           
Georgetown Schools................................  RF272-80039         
Green Oil Corporation.............................  RF304-12125         
Greenwood Lake Union Free School District.........  RR272-106           
Hipolex Corporation...............................  RF272-67876         
M&M Shell Station.................................  RF315-5215          
Manley Texaco.....................................  RF321-7175          
Mike's Texaco & U-Haul............................  RF321-12604         
Tri-State Homes, Inc..............................  RF272-92520         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copies of the full text of these decisions and orders are available 
in the Public Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
room 1E-234, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 1 
p.m. and 5 p.m., except federal holidays. They are also available in 
Energy Management: Federal Energy Guidelines, a commercially published 
loose leaf reporter system.

    Dated: May 25, 1994.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 94-13306 Filed 5-31-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P